[lit-ideas] Re: Waterboarding Bodies Mattered
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Waterboarding Bodies Mattered
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 9:37 PM
That certainly is one way to look at it. Another way is that 9/11 constituted
an act of war by an international affiliation of combatants who, not
representing any nation, were therefore not protected by any nation. Since it
was an act of war, they were subject to capture by any means necessary.
*No doubt an attack by on organization that is either international or
a-national created a speficic situation. However, the US reaction to it could
have been different, and remains problematic. For one things, the
interpretation of the attack as 'an act of war.' Wars have traditionally been
fought between nation-states, or groups of states. It is not clear how you can
have a war between a nation-state and a non-state organization. Also, if the
attack is seen as an act of war, then I suppose that it could not be a
terrorist attack, since attacks on population centres have been seen in World
War II for example, by both sides. The captured attackers, or potential
attackers, would then have to be treated as combatants and granted rights
accordingly, as stipulated by Geneva conventions.
It seems to me that the US should have attempted to create (or improve) the
pertinent legislation on international level, instead of treating the matter
entirely within its own legal system, particularly if the attack is seen as an
act of war rather than purely a criminal action.
O.K.
Other related posts:
